That is a very big discussion point Ken. I am not sure I agree. I think a lot of photography has little to do with the subject portrayed and a lot to do with the photographer’s vision which may well be an intention to distort and break all those reminders. For instance, creating a cosmos from a cookie sheet, or slab of dirty concrete, or the side of a headstone or a wet spinning filament in a spider’s web. I think those kinds of photographs look into places other than the past and are not intended as reminders but more like road signs to other places far away.
And in less abstract terms the extremely fleeting moments captured, for instance in street photography, are often depicting falsities as well – they look like one thing, but are often a misleading (and the good ones probably are more interesting) thin slice from a larger and very different scenario. Kind of like interpreting a conversation from a few words in a single sentence. I guess that can be a reminder, but often it is a false one (but maybe that is what you meant). Wedding photos on the other hand quickly become reminders of something past, as intended.

Good points, all. I don’t mean to diminish the power of a photograph at all. Part of that power comes from the fact that the photos are out of context and only isolate a cross section of the reality as seen by the photographer. The photographer brings his own biases, filters and vision and makes that moment personal. But the finished product, the photo itself, is now it’s own reality, separate from the actual subject.